In "Three-State Solution," a New York Sun Editorial (thanks to Ruth King), the nameless editorial writer demonstrates that he or she doesn't even realize the implications of what he or she is writing:
For years the debate in respect of Israel and the Palestinian Arabs has been between partisans of a one-state solution and partisans of a two-state solution. The one-state solution is advanced by those Jews — at this point a minority, though distinguished, faction — who believe that Israel can remain a Jewish state and a democracy while also ruling the West Bank and Gaza, lands with which the Jewish people have longstanding religious and historical ties. It is also advanced by those Arabs who believe that Israel's destruction as a Jewish state can be achieved by a demographic and military triumph of the Arabs between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The two-state solution is advanced by those who believe the best solution to the competing demands of the Jews and the Arabs is to create an Arab state called " Palestine" in the West Bank and Gaza, a state that partisans of this idea claim would co-exist with Israel in peace. President Bush put the case for a two-state solution in his June 24, 2002, remarks in the Rose Garden this way: "A stable, peaceful Palestinian state is necessary to achieve the security that Israel longs for." What the latest developments in Gaza and the West Bank herald is the possibility of a third option — a three-state solution, in which Gaza and the West Bank are not artificially mashed together into a single Palestinian state with no real historical precedent or logic, but allowed to go their own separate ways. This, by the way, is the situation that obtained in the first 19 years of Israel's modern existence. Three states occupied the land now controlled by Israel and the Palestinian Authority — Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank. It was hardly an ideal situation — Egyptian territory was used as a base for attacking Israel, while Jordan desecrated Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem. But, with important modifications, it might provide at least on an interim basis a better pattern for a way forward than either the one-state or the two-state solutions.
Just a few of the many things wrong with this:
1. The author postulates a "three-state solution" as an alternative to, among other things, a unified Arab jihadist state, which is "advanced by those Arabs who believe that Israel's destruction as a Jewish state can be achieved by a demographic and military triumph of the Arabs between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea." But what evidence is there that any "Palestinian" state of any kind would not be dedicated to Israel's ultimate destruction?
2. The author criticizes the "two-state solution" for "artificially mas[ing] together" Gaza and the West Bank "into a single Palestinian state with no real historical precedent or logic." But no Palestinian state has any historical precedent or logic. There never has been a Palestinian state in the history of the world. So it is hardly a strike against one solution or another to say that it has no historical precedent: no solution involving a Palestinian state does. (This is not to say I favor a two-state solution; I don't, because of the jihad ideology which makes it quite clear that any Palestinian state will just be a base for further attacks on Israel.)
3. The author doesn't notice that there was no clamor for Palestinian statehood while Egypt and Jordan controlled Gaza and the West Bank. Now, why was that? And seeing as how Egypt and Jordan used their control of Gaza and the West Bank to launch attacks against Israel, as the author notes, what makes him think the Palestinians won't, when they've shown no sign of stopping up to now?
I think you've misinterpreted this editorial. The "Three-state solution" being advocated here is not Israel, Hamastan, and Fatahstan. Rather, it is Israel, Egypt, and Jordan -- with minor modifications: "parts of Gaza" going to Egypt and "Palestinian Arab areas of the West Bank that are not necessary for Israel's security or as part of its religious patrimony turned over to Jordan" -- in other words, Israel and Jordan divvying up the WB. Note:
There are those who will say the above is but a variant of the one-state solution, in that it would leave the Jewish state as the only one standing 50 years after Lake Success.
The real problem with this idea is that it has been tried before; the Egyptians don't want Gaza and the Hashemites don't want more Palestinian Arabs.
How about the "repatriate the Muslims to Muslim lands" solution, and let Israel regain control of the entire historical region that was Judea/Samarra?
The no-states-for-terrorists solution.
If some in Vermont have their way, the rest of the United States is going to be presented with a "two-state" solution of its own. And if we can take and reverse the famous phrase about Alf Landon's performance in 1936, so that it becomes "As goes Vermont, so goes Maine" then we might have, soon after, a "three-state solution" and then...well, the sky's the limit, if that sky can be described as fifty, each potential new country with its thirteen-striped,single-star flag.
Think of the non-stop passport controls. Think of the currency-changing problems. My god, the noise, the people! Let's lower this from the flagpole right now, lest anyone salute.
The New York Sun's three state solution is idiotic. It would be exactly like the current two state "solution" except that the Arabs would get an extra vote in the UN. Both Gaza and the West Bank would still be terror bases under either plan.
However, the is a three state solution that is just snd workable. The two Palestinian states would consist of Jordan as a state for "Palestinian" Muslims (it already has a "Palestinian" Muslim majority anyway).
The second state would be for Palestinian Christians. It would consist of historically Christian ares such as Bethlehem, Ramallah, and Naszareth. There are well over a million Palestinian Christians in exile and they will be encouraged to return. This state would be in confederation with Israel. Newly depopulated Gaza and Jericho will be annexed direcly into Israel.
Many will object that this plan requires massive population transfers. Yes, but there is ample historic precedent. Just look at how the UN moved all the Germans out out of Poland when they redrew that country's borders at the end of World War WII. The same population transfers happened in Czechoslovakia as well as to the Japanese living in Korea and Manchuria. Of couse, these population transfers should be done humanely and with full compensation.
Israel and Christian Palestine will be more easily defendable since the Jordan River is a natural boundary with no more ugly security walls to mar the land. Besides, Jews and Christians have proven they can work together to build mutual prosperity. This has rarely been the case with Muslims.
profitsbeard:
How about the "repatriate the Muslims to Muslim lands" solution, and let Israel regain control of the entire historical region that was Judea/Samarra?
Yup. I 100% agree with this.
And after that we can talk about Arab Muslims vacating Syria, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morroco and any other place that is not part of the Arabian Peninsula
profitsbeard:
How about the "repatriate the Muslims to Muslim lands" solution, and let Israel regain control of the entire historical region that was Judea/Samarra?
Yup. I 100% agree with this.
And after that we can talk about Arab Muslims vacating Syria, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morroco and any other place that is not part of the Arabian Peninsula
In the long run, Hamas will only be satisfied with a "one state" solution.
“President Bush put the case for a two-state solution in his June 24, 2002, remarks in the Rose Garden this way: "A stable, peaceful Palestinian state is necessary to achieve the security that Israel longs for."”
A sentiment that could have been expressed by Neville Chamberlain in 1938 – substituting “Sudeten German” for “Palestinian” and “Czechoslovakia” for “Israel”
The Jewish people have a historic, legal and moral right to live somewhere in the Middle East. They have lived there continuously for thousands of years. However, the history of the last 100 years shows that under regimes that were "secular", "socialist", "Marxist", "capitalist", and "Islamist", the solution for the Jewish people was always the same: less to none.
For the Jewish people to continue to exist in fact as well as in law in the Middle East, they must have a viable separate state.
Modern Israel is a district that is not practical as constituted to preserve the Jewish people. The Muslim lands that have forced out Jewish people in the last 100 years should take in the Muslim Arab people in Gaza and the West Bank.
The Christians should get at least Lebanon for all of the same reasons as above.
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, in sharia theology, Christians and Jews can live in peace in Muslim lands, but in practice they can't.
profitsbeard said
I agree completely. I also agree with provoslavni that it should be done humanely and with compensation.
Hamas and Fatah divided themselves between the Gaza Strip and "West Bank", and there is barely a "tsk tsk". The Iraqis are on the verge of dividing themselves along Shi'ite/Sunni/Kurdish lines, and nary a word is spoken. The African Muslims are being repatriated to refugee camps by the Arab Muslims, and the UN blames it on global warming. The Jordanians forcefully and violently expelled all Jews, and with no compensation. But if anyone suggests that the "Palestinian" Muslims should be assisted to settle in Jordan or Egypt, everyone screams "genocide" and "war crimes".
Well, not everyone.